Uttam Ram @ Uttam Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Delay condonation application (IA 2 of 2023) would stand allowed. Counter affidavit is taken on record.

Applicant Uttam Ram, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 206 of 2022, under Section 354 I.P.C. and under Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Basant Bihar, District Dehradun has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is a glaring discrepancy and unexplained contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. & 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate; that, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she allegedly stated the name of the applicant/accused as the person who had hit her on chest and her brother thereafter trying to pull her inside the bathroom, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate (at page no.44 to the bail application) she states that one person who is tenant in the courtyard of the house of the victim, whose name she does not know was standing near the bathroom, was tried to hit her and tried to pull her in the bathroom; that, there is no other allegation of any sexual assault as such against the applicant/accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the applicant is in judicial custody since 29.09.2022; that, the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence by the applicant/accused, thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars as the trial is likely to take long time.

Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that there might be some contradictions in the statements of the victim that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that, during the trial, the applicant-accused can be identified by the victim. However, he could not explain that why the test identification of the applicant/accused was not done during the period of investigation when the police had ample opportunity to do the same.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case this Court is of the view that it is a case for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.